Mormons, when did the Apostacy occur?

[JonathanKinsman]

Wussup, you read Jerry Porath? It was a long time ago, about 1980 when my companion and I met him. He was living in Simi Valley at the time. The missionaries before us had taught him, he was pretty well known even at that time.

Are you mormon guys discussing GERRY Porath, the former anti-Catholic Protestant minister who converted to LDS and authored a book about the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Mercy, even one of your own gets short shrift!

 

[rmcmullan]

JK, I see you are from Arroyo Grande, the same mission (Ventura Californa) as Jerry Porath. They’ve re-aligned the mssion since I served there but yes, he was a Lutheran minister and gave it up to become LDS. I haven’t read his Dead Sea Scrolls book but he did put out a set of tapes on the Reformation which I still have. I guess after having left the ministry, he had no more income, as modest as it might have been.

 

[Allweather]

JK, I see you are from Arroyo Grande, the same mission (Ventura Californa) as Jerry Porath. They’ve re-aligned the mssion since I served there but yes, he was a Lutheran minister and gave it up to become LDS. I haven’t read his Dead Sea Scrolls book but he did put out a set of tapes on the Reformation which I still have. I guess after having left the ministry, he had no more income, as modest as it might have been.

Well, that explains why I never heard of Jerry, or Gerry, Porath.

 

[flameburns623]

One way the Catholic Church deals with stuff like this is to have a Catechism, where all the Church’s official teachings are laid out, in one volume. The Mormon church evidently does not have a catechism. When I asked about this, it was speculated by another that the reason for this is because the absence of having things down in writing allows the LDS leadership to deny things that become inconvenient for it.

wussup, why is it do YOU think the Mormon church doesn’t have a catechism?

Actually, the LDS Church DOES have Priesthood manuals, Gospel Doctrine manuals, Gospel Essentials manuals, etcetera. These serve as ‘catechisms’ to about the same extent that the old Baltimore Catechism serve Roman Catholics as such. I don’t believe the LDS Church has anything like the Catechism of The Catholic Church, and authoritative summary officially endorsed by the First Presidency of the LDS Church. I think there have been attempts at this–Bruce McConkie and Joseph Fielding Smith each endeavored such a project.

It should be noted that even the CCC will almost certainly undergo revisions and changes over the next many decades, partly as language itself changes, and partly as Catholic theology is nuanced and finessed in minor ways. I don’t, however, expect that the RCC will go through a ‘public relations’ campaign which will lead it to deny outright some of the historic doctrines and practices Roman Catholics now hold dear. I doubt we will see the RCC disavow the Immaculate Assumption, for example. Mormons have, however, disavowed or profoundly redefined a goodly number of their doctrines: the Adam-God theory, for instance. Polygamy, for instance.

 

[Allweather]

I doubt we will see the RCC disavow the Immaculate Assumption, for example.

I’m sure you mean Immaculate Conception. Yes, both Assumption and Immaculate Conception are dogmas that have been defined, and so are not going to be renounced. There’ll be no appearances of the Pope on Larry King making wishy-washy comments on the order that the Mormon prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley made concerning god-was-once-a-man.

Mormons have, however, disavowed or profoundly redefined a goodly number of their doctrines: the Adam-God theory, for instance. Polygamy, for instance.

I get the feeling that there is no doctrine of Mormonism that is not subject to renunciation or revision for as minor a reason as that the U.S. Government demands it. Mormons had to ostensibly drop their beloved polygamy, and reform Utah’s gov’t from theocracy to democracy, simply because the Federal Government demanded it. Some god.

 

[Allweather]

I haven’t read his (Porath’s) Dead Sea Scrolls book but he did put out a set of tapes on the Reformation which I still have. I guess after having left the ministry, he had no more income, as modest as it might have been.

I googled both Jerry and Gerry Porath and only turned up a couple of Deseret book auctions for his Dead Sea Scrolls book. Has he written anything else?

 

[zerinus]

flameburns623; 1964322:

Actually, the LDS Church DOES have Priesthood manuals, Gospel Doctrine manuals, Gospel Essentials manuals, etcetera. These serve as ‘catechisms’ to about the same extent that the old Baltimore Catechism serve Roman Catholics as such.

That is not correct. The LDS Church does not have a catechism at all, and those manuals and handbooks do not, and are not intended to serve the purpose of a catechism. It is in fact contrary to the policy of the LDS Church to have a catechism, or anything comparable to it. The doctrine of the Church are taught and defined in the scriptural canon of the LDS Church—the standard works. We believe that no one can do better what God Himself has done, in defining the doctrines of the Church in His Own revelations and scriptures that He has given to the Church. That is the true, authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine. There is nothing that man can do that can improve on what God has done.

Mormons have, however, disavowed or profoundly redefined a goodly number of their doctrines: the Adam-God theory, for instance. Polygamy, for instance.

Not true. Adam-God theory has never been a doctrine of the LDS Church; and the doctrine of polygamy has never been disavowed. Only the practice of it has been discontinued in obedience to the laws of the land.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

well then, where in the standard works are the temple ordinances? aren’t they the most important part of the LDS religion? besides LDS scriptures have in the past been changed when LDS leaders wanted to change the doctrine. Polygamy is a fine example. The original D&C said polygamy was a crime and that the LDS didn’t practice it. BUT they did and after a while folks questioned it so they changed it. The nature of God would be another good example. First the D&C said there was only the Father and the Son, that the Holy Ghost was their “shared mind” and that the Father didn’t have a physical body, only the son. but that appeared to contradict other scriptures so they changed that too. lots of other examples. what’s funny is that there are worse contradictions still extant that are only exacerbated by the previous attempts to “correct” the scriptures to teach “current” LDS doctrine. Orwell had an excellent example for the ministry of truth.

 

[flameburns623]

Allweather:

I’m sure you mean Immaculate Conception.

Actually I meant the Immaculate Conception AND the Assumption. :banghead: I managed in my haste to confound the two. Many apologies!

Zerinus:
That is not correct. The LDS Church does not have a catechism at all, and those manuals and handbooks do not, and are not intended to serve the purpose of a catechism. It is in fact contrary to the policy of the LDS Church to have a catechism, or anything comparable to it. The doctrine of the Church are taught and defined in the scriptural canon of the LDS Church—the standard works. We believe that no one can do better what God Himself has done, in defining the doctrines of the Church in His Own revelations and scriptures that He has given to the Church. That is the true, authoritative source of LDS theology and doctrine. There is nothing that man can do that can improve on what God has done.

Umm . . . And why, again, do you even HAVE manuals and handbooks, if all you need are the Standard Works? And what happened to the idea that the daily counsel of the living Prophet and the General Authorities is needful to understand the Standard Works? What happened to the idea that such counsel as is found in the official publications of the Church amounts to a sort of lesser ‘continuing revelation,’ guidance from God given through His emissaries to help one live out the teachings of the Scriptures (aka 'Standard Works) day-to-day?

More importantly:do you even know what a catechism actually is or what it does? It is NOT a substitute for Scripture, if that is what you somehow have concluded. It is not an infallible guide to doctrine–even though the CCC is more authoritative than most such catechisms, it is still only an interpretation of Catholic theology. It has far less authority, even within the Roman Catholic Church, than do the Scriptures or even the decrees of an Ecumenical Council. A catechism is simply a guide and a help to understanding Scripture and the present teachings of a given church. Which is pretty much what I thought the extra-scriptural publications of the CoJCoLDS were also designed to be.

Not true. Adam-God theory has never been a doctrine of the LDS Church . .

Notably, despite the best efforts of Brigham Young to make it so. As I recollect, he affirmed this doctrine on more than one occasion, and in rather forceful terms.

. . . and the doctrine of polygamy has never been disavowed. Only the practice of it has been discontinued in obedience to the laws of the land.

On the other hand, you no longer teach that Blacks are unworthy to receive the Priesthood. Please note at least doctrine which clearly has been changed. Moreover, a closer examination of polygamy in the light of Mormonism’s own Standard Works suggests that at times the practice of plural marriage has been treated as an abomination, and yet at other times embraced as the means for the exaltation of souls. I’m thinking especially of the numerous passages of the Book of Mormon which decry polygamy, for example, as opposed to those passages in the D&C which prescribe it.

I do appreciate it, Zerinus, when you correct me on things I actually am mistaken on. I think, however, that you are being argumentative and contentious over issues about which we will probably never fully agree upon, areas where our starting assumptions naturally lead us to differing conclusions. And I don’t think you are always choosing your battles as wisely as you might–as with the ‘catechism’ issue, above. Please do note that while I do NOT accept LDS doctrine, I do try to be rather more thoughtful and respectful of what you teach than some here might. I do make an effort to be correct.

 

[zerinus]

Actually I meant the Immaculate Conception AND the Assumption. :banghead: I managed in my haste to confound the two. Many apologies!

Umm . . . And why, again, do you even HAVE manuals and handbooks, if all you need are the Standard Works? And what happened to the idea that the daily counsel of the living Prophet and the General Authorities is needful to understand the Standard Works? What happened to the idea that such counsel as is found in the official publications of the Church amounts to a sort of lesser ‘continuing revelation,’ guidance from God given through His emissaries to help one live out the teachings of the Scriptures (aka 'Standard Works) day-to-day?

More importantly:do you even know what a catechism actually is or what it does? It is NOT a substitute for Scripture, if that is what you somehow have concluded. It is not an infallible guide to doctrine–even though the CCC is more authoritative than most such catechisms, it is still only an interpretation of Catholic theology. It has far less authority, even within the Roman Catholic Church, than do the Scriptures or even the decrees of an Ecumenical Council. A catechism is simply a guide and a help to understanding Scripture and the present teachings of a given church. Which is pretty much what I thought the extra-scriptural publications of the CoJCoLDS were also designed to be.

Notably, despite the best efforts of Brigham Young to make it so. As I recollect, he affirmed this doctrine on more than one occasion, and in rather forceful terms.

On the other hand, you no longer teach that Blacks are unworthy to receive the Priesthood. Please note at least doctrine which clearly has been changed. Moreover, a closer examination of polygamy in the light of Mormonism’s own Standard Works suggests that at times the practice of plural marriage has been treated as an abomination, and yet at other times embraced as the means for the exaltation of souls. I’m thinking especially of the numerous passages of the Book of Mormon which decry polygamy, for example, as opposed to those passages in the D&C which prescribe it.

I do appreciate it, Zerinus, when you correct me on things I actually am mistaken on. I think, however, that you are being argumentative and contentious over issues about which we will probably never fully agree upon, areas where our starting assumptions naturally lead us to differing conclusions. And I don’t think you are always choosing your battles as wisely as you might–as with the ‘catechism’ issue, above. Please do note that while I do NOT accept LDS doctrine, I do try to be rather more thoughtful and respectful of what you teach than some here might. I do make an effort to be correct.

Answer remains the same as the previous one. Nothing further need be added to what I had said in my previous post.

zerinus

 

[wussup]

I consider the service as a missionary a privilege to make a success. I had the opportunity to preach the gospel not only to individuals, but even a few Churches (one of which was a baptist church). Please allow me to give a couple hints to make your message receptive.

1. Your sarcastic remarks are insulting to believers of the faith you amuse yourself with. Note how I have tried to understand your faith, perhaps asking or leading with uncomfortable facts, but always with good intent to get your point accurately. (Note the CofM comments were attempts to make this point. Sometimes walking in someone elses shoes can explain better than logical explanations). Hence sarcastic jokes about our taking the Lord literally that John, Enoch, and others have yet to taste death does not lend one to take your words with anything but distaste.
2. Spreading what is perceived as mistruths about another’s religion only causes you to lose credibility. Even if what you say is true (such as the Adam-God THEORY) if your listener doesn’t believe that, telling him he does is really not an effective technique. Insisting you know more about anothers religion the practioner (even if it is true) leaves a very bad taste.

Again, lets get crazy, let us say the RC contains not only the fullness of the Gospel, but really does have the Apostolic line of succession. That would mean that God would consider the Catholic Church his ecclesiastical authority on Earth, and that he would want the members of his ecclesiastical authority (that would be you) to make good faith attempts to proselyte non-members (that would be me). Further, I think God would not be pleased when members of His Church are so unpleasant (that would be you) that they make it impossible for those willing to listen (that would be me) to take your message with anything but skepticism (i.e., full of ad hominems, distortions, inflammatory remarks, and outright lies) and unworthy of consideration.

Another correction. I meant to say Jerry Usher, not Jerry Porath. I believe Jerry Porath is a social worker now. He was a Lutheran minister, to my knowledge his only anti-catholic work was to detail the apostasy from his perspective. I wouldn’t classify him as ‘anti-catholic’ because that is not his ‘thing’. My opinion.

Having said that, Majick, go back and read the posts. I did not bring up the Cain-is-Bigfoot red herring, PaulDupre did on entry #280.

Regarding the burned at the stake…I was just listening to Catholic Answers (again, if I get the facts wrong, correct me) but the guest basically blamed the Churches stand on its extreme injunction against the earth not being the center of the Universe on Protestants. The guest explained that the Catholic Church was trying to keep the Protestants from leaving and was simply keeping up with the Calvinists. Actually I was referring to Bruno who carried the idea to the next logical conclusion of multiple suns, planets, etc… (Note: he was quite a character and it has been debated about exactly what he was burned at the stake for because the RC lost the official Roman-Catholic-Church-Person-to-be-Burned-at-the-Stake-Authorization-Paperwork).

Section 132 of D&C refers to the need to be Sealed to a Spouse to receive the fullness of the Gospel, not polygamous marriages. But then you knew that. Another example of misspeaking my faith. But then we all know your response, a circular argument where you actually know more about my Faith than I do (or anyone else). And then you will say that they (Church leadership) REALLY know the truth, but won’t say it (argumentum ad ignoranteum) or that they aren’t really all that knowledgeable about the history (ad hominem), not like you. Dude, that is not Church teaching, and God will not be happy with you for spreading lies (even iff my Church is false).

As for denying the ‘Adam God Theory’ (which is a theory) and polygamy, the Church has done neither. The Adam God Theory was never taught as doctrine. King Follet’s sermon gives a high view teaching about a very complex doctrine. The Church has never fleshed it out, and as a result a lot of supposition and speculation surrounds it. Polygamy is still a valid teaching of the Church, however, at this time it is not permitted for man to marry more than one woman upon penalty of excommunication. Again, there is speculation here that there will come a time during the tribulations, in the words of Isaiah, ‘seven woman shall take hold of one man, let us call ourselves by your name…’. If God wills it again, the Church will practice polygamy, regardless of the law.

 

[wussup]

Place the following if you can. Regarding our present inquiry we accept as demonstrated facts the establishment of the Church of Christ under the Savior’s personal administration and the rapid growth of the Church in the early period of the apostolic ministry.

A question of the utmost importance is: Has the Church of Christ, thus authoritatively established, maintained an organized existence upon the earth from the apostolic age to the present? Other questions are suggested by the first. If the Church has continued as an earthly organization, where lies
the proof or evidence of legitimate succession in priestly authority, and which among the multitude of contending sects or churches of the present day is the actual possessor of the holy priesthood originally committed to the Church by the Christ, its founder?

Furthermore, have the spiritual gifts and graces by which the early Church was characterized and distinguished been manifest on earth through the centuries that have passed since the meridian of time; and if so, in which of the numerous churches of these modern times do we find such signs following the
professed believers? See Mark 16:17.

I affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church GRADUALLY drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in
spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist.

If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth today it must have been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church.

I do further state that while mankind may pray to, receive answers and blessings from the Eternal Father, this in no way reflects the legitimate succession of the priesthood.

We affirm that the great apostasy was foretold by the Savior Himself while He lived as a Man among men, and by His inspired prophets both before and after the period of His earthly probation. And further, we affirm that a rational interpretation of history demonstrates the fact of this great and
general apostasy.

Before we take up in detail the specific predictions referred to, and the evidence of their dread fulfillment, we may profitably devote brief attention to certain general considerations.

Respecting the foreknowledge of God, let it not be said that divine omniscience is of itself a determining cause whereby events are inevitably brought to pass. A mortal father who knows the weaknesses and frailties of his son may by reason of that knowledge sorrowfully predict the calamities
and sufferings awaiting his wayward boy. He may foresee in that son’s future a forfeiture of blessings that could have been won, loss of position, self-respect, reputation and honor; even the dark shadows of a felon’s cell and the night of a drunkard’s grave may appear in the saddening visions of that
fond father’s soul; yet, convinced by experience of the impossibility of bringing about that son’s reform, he foresees the dread developments of the future, and he finds but sorrow and anguish in his knowledge. Can it be said that the father’s foreknowledge is a cause of the son’s sinful life? The son, perchance, has reached his maturity; he is the master of his own destiny; a free agent unto himself. The father is powerless to control by force or to direct by arbitrary command; and, while he would gladly make any
effort or sacrifice to save his son from the fate impending, he fears for what seems to be an awful certainty. But surely that thoughtful, prayerful, loving parent does not contribute to the son’s waywardness because of his knowledge. To reason otherwise would be to say that a neglectful father, who
takes not the trouble to study the nature and character of his son, who shuts his eyes to sinful tendencies, and rests in careless indifference as to the probable future, will by his very heartlessness be benefiting his child, because his lack of forethought cannot operate as a contributory cause to dereliction.

Our Heavenly Father has a full knowledge of the nature and dispositions of each of His children, a knowledge gained by long observation and experience in the past eternity of our primeval childhood; a knowledge compared with which that gained by earthly parents through mortal experience with their
children is infinitesimally small. By reason of that surpassing knowledge, God reads the future of child and children, of men individually and of men collectively as communities and nations; He knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason; He foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be.

 

[MrS]

Again, lets get crazy, let us say the RC contains not only the fullness of the Gospel, but really does have the Apostolic line of succession. That would mean that God would consider the Catholic Church his ecclesiastical authority on Earth, and that he would want the members of his ecclesiastical authority (that would be you) to make good faith attempts to proselyte non-members (that would be me). .

.

Two comments on this as I see it…

1] The Bishops, as successors of Peter and the Apostles have the authority and command from Christ to “… feed My sheep, tend My flock, feed My sheep…” No other man, men, or church has ever received that instruction from Jesus Christ (who has NOT come again yet), and that would certainly put your founder outside of any divine credibility.

2] The same command, and that of the Great Commission to “… teach all nations…” are never to be misconstrued as proselytizing. That is the procedure often taken by some of the non-Catholic faith communities.

While I admire the zeal of many “door-knockers” (i.e. the JWs and the LDS), I find that they are the least of the problems associated with proselytizing… that trait is usually the approach of the fundamentalists (like Baptists, Church of Christ, Pentacostals etc.)

.

 

[artist3189]

ZERINUS AND WSSUP, PLEASE ANSWER THIS.

WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE FOR ANY OF JOSEPH SMITHS CLAIMS FOR WHAT HE SAW, WHAT HE WROTE, WHAT HE CLAIMED TO FIND SUCH AS THE TABLETS, AND *WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR A WHOLE HISTORY OF A *CIVILIZATION THAT HE PROCLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE? IS THERE ANY, INSCRIPTIONS, TOMBS, EXTANT STORIES OUTSIDE OF HIS OWN, ANY EXCAVATIONS?.. The tablets where found in the 1800’s, where are they? Please tell me where the LDS Church is digging and looking for this evidence and what they’ve found, I want an answer. It must exist because he said so, so where are they excavating, in South America, Central America, American west, what states. Where are the tablets? Is there any testimony, any extant history from another culture that testifies to this history outside of Smiths? Please tell me where so I can read about it…Answer this please, this is a direct question to either wssup or zerinus. Where are they digging, the LDS Church, with all their resources. Where? Zerinus, answer please in your words with this information. Wssup loves to challenge the provenance of works such as the Didache. But what this ultimately proves is the factual existence of such provenance, which shows at the very least, the EXPRESSIONS of thought and understanding during the early church period. And so, we go back to the LDS CLAIMS, which are Legion and I ask, please show me the bedrock evidence for your organization. Wssup loves to read and dissect Church teachings, history, writings, and has this ability precisely because THEY EXIST. Wssup, YOU SAID, THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH APOSTATIZED RIGHT AFTER THE DEATH OF PETER AND THEN THE, ‘YOUR WORDS’ THE EARLY CHURCH SHORTLY AFTER AND I ASK YOU, AGAIN, POINT BLANK, TELL ME WHAT WAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING PETERS TIME, AND HOW WAS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF THE ‘EARLY CHURCH’, WHO WHERE THEY, WHAT WERE THEY? YOU SAID IT, NOW EXPLAIN IT. YOU SOMEHOW USE THE SUCCESSION OF POPES AS HISTORICAL PROOF OF THE GREAT APOSTASY. SHOW ME YOUR PROVENANCE WSSUP, WHERE ARE THE LDS DIGGING, WHAT ARE THEY LOOKING FOR, WHAT BECAME OF THE TABLETS, WHERE IS THE CORROBORATION FOR SMITHS WRITINGS. PLEASE ANSWER AND ALSO CLARIFY YOUR STATEMENT IN REGARDS TO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH DURING PETERS LIFE AND AFTER. You love to pour over Church material, at least it’s there my friend, really there. Please show me where to look for yours.

 

[Allweather]

Polygamy is still a valid teaching of the Church, however, at this time it is not permitted for man to marry more than one woman upon penalty of excommunication. Again, there is speculation here that there will come a time during the tribulations, in the words of Isaiah, ‘seven woman shall take hold of one man, let us call ourselves by your name…’. If God wills it again, the Church will practice polygamy, regardless of the law.

Yes, polygamy lives on, even in the minds and hearts of the Salt Lake City branch of Mormonism, where it has become prohibited since the end of the 19th century. We understand that the reason for this prohibition was to bring the Mormon church into conformity with the law of the land. See my new thread,started this morning, regarding that.

FWIW, no other single thing about Mormonism convinced my fiance, after some 25 years as a Mormon, that Mormonism is a false form of Christianity, than polygamy. She knew very little about it, because the Mormon church does not teach it openly anymore, for fear of alienating its members, especially (I daresay) its female members. But it is clear, both from what wussup says here, as well as what Zerinus has said in the past, that polygamy is STILL a big part of Mormon belief. I endeavored to present her with the historical facts about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Mormon Great Men who practiced this sinful and adulterous behavior, and brother, you could practically SEE the scales falling from her eyes. I rather suspect that this would be the case with MOST Mormon women, were they to become informed about Mormon teachings, and the hopes and desires of Mormon men.

 

[Allweather]

I affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church GRADUALLY drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist.

You’re “affirm(ing)” this without reference to historical evidence. All the historical evidence says that the Catholic Church did NOT go apostate. One way we can know this is because the Catholic Church continues to exist today, teaching the same doctrines that it taught 2000 years ago. An apostate church could not have survived the turmoil of the centuries.

If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth today it must have been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church.

Affirmative on the Church being found upon the Earth today, and that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church that Jesus founded upon the Apostles, which is reported in the New Testament. Negative on the so-called “restoration.” There was nothing to “restore.” This Catholic Church never ceased to exist, the priesthood and divine authority were never lost. A claim unto restoration is a false claim being made by several false religions today, among them Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, as well as a few minor Protestant sects.

I do further state that while mankind may pray to, receive answers and blessings from the Eternal Father, this in no way reflects the legitimate succession of the priesthood.

I tend to agree about prayer. However, we can know that the legitimate Apostolic succession is unbroken, because the Church it serves is unbroken. Without a legitimate priesthood, the Catholic Church would have died centuries ago. Mormons so wish they could prove this apostasy; the existence of the Catholic Church proves it to be a lie, and so they are reduced to trying to prove a lie, which, as we all know, is impossible. Their religion rests upon the foundation of the Great Apostasy, and it is a foundation of lies and “affirmations” of wishful thinking and hopeful fantasies.

We affirm that the great apostasy was foretold by the Savior Himself while He lived as a Man among men, and by His inspired prophets both before and after the period of His earthly probation. And further, we affirm that a rational interpretation of history demonstrates the fact of this great and
general apostasy.

Why don’t we explore some of this “history” then? Give us some details.

 

[Allweather]

wussup… in Acts 5, some of the Apostles, among them Simon Peter, were in danger of being executed by the Sanhedrin, which was taking a very dim view of their having disobeyed their instructions not to continue teaching the things of Jesus. In 5:34 Gamaliel, “a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up, ordered the men (the Apostles on trial) to be put outside for a short time,…”

Gamaliel goes on to advise the Sanhedrin to “be careful what you are about to do to these men.”

He then gives two examples of previous rebels who rose up, gathered followers. These men died, and their movements faded away in time.

In verses 38 and 39, Gamaliel says,“So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.”

We now know that this movement, becoming known in those days as Christianity, survived the martyrdom of most of its early leaders, and an awful lot of its followers. It survived the persecutions and social upheavals of 20 centuries following that, something no other Earthly institution can claim to have done. The only thing that stands in comparison is the Hebrews, whose continued existence is also a miracle, also attributable to the same God Almighty, who has protected them from destruction. Catholicism is a fulfillment of Judaism. Both share the protection of the same Almighty God, the Ancient of Days, Holy Immortal One, who promised that He would be with us until the end of time. We know he kept that promise, because the Church has not died. If God had withdrawn his protection at any time, the Church would be just a pile of ruins.

 

[majick275]

I consider the service as a missionary a privilege to make a success. I had the opportunity to preach the gospel not only to individuals, but even a few Churches (one of which was a baptist church). Please allow me to give a couple hints to make your message receptive.

i think you have a misconception here. this is not an evangelical forum. the purpose is to discuss topics in the search for answers. we can’t engage in Catholic “spin” we have to tell the whole truth. thus RCIA (our conversion process) is lengthy, detailed and not done on internet forums.

1. Your sarcastic remarks are insulting to believers of the faith you amuse yourself with. Note how I have tried to understand your faith, perhaps asking or leading with uncomfortable facts, but always with good intent to get your point accurately. (Note the CofM comments were attempts to make this point. Sometimes walking in someone elses shoes can explain better than logical explanations). Hence sarcastic jokes about our taking the Lord literally that John, Enoch, and others have yet to taste death does not lend one to take your words with anything but distaste.

hey the CofM thing works both ways. sometimes shock value is required to prove a point.

1. Spreading what is perceived as mistruths about another’s religion only causes you to lose credibility. Even if what you say is true (such as the Adam-God THEORY) if your listener doesn’t believe that, telling him he does is really not an effective technique. Insisting you know more about anothers religion the practioner (even if it is true) leaves a very bad taste.

i’m not sure what to do with this. We can’t overlook the truth. we can’t avoid controversial or unpleasant truths. We proved these topics. I’m not sorry they offend. they SHOULD! otherwise why would folks get motivated to leave the LDS church? no one will leave a false religion if those who know the truth only tell them “your church is awesome”.

Having said that, Majick, go back and read the posts. I did not bring up the Cain-is-Bigfoot red herring, PaulDupre did on entry #280.

i know that. but i was objecting to your lumping that together with legitimate examples of false doctrine in what i perceived to be an attempt to invalidate by association.

Section 132 of D&C refers to the need to be Sealed to a Spouse to receive the fullness of the Gospel, not polygamous marriages. But then you knew that. Another example of misspeaking my faith. But then we all know your response, a circular argument where you actually know more about my Faith than I do (or anyone else). And then you will say that they (Church leadership) REALLY know the truth, but won’t say it (argumentum ad ignoranteum) or that they aren’t really all that knowledgeable about the history (ad hominem), not like you. Dude, that is not Church teaching, and God will not be happy with you for spreading lies (even iff my Church is false).

i challenge this completely. I have shown references from LDS sources for all of this. as to D&C 132. look at it!!! it doesn’t say (nor did I) that you must practice polygamy on earth. BUT we all know that in the highest degree of celestial glory all the men will have multiple wives.

As for denying the ‘Adam God Theory’ (which is a theory) and polygamy, the Church has done neither. The Adam God Theory was never taught as doctrine.

Brigham Young said it was. It was CALLED a theory by revisionist historians. it WAS denounced as false doctrine later. Even gordon B hinkley admitted BY taught this.

King Follet’s sermon gives a high view teaching about a very complex doctrine. The Church has never fleshed it out, and as a result a lot of supposition and speculation surrounds it.

this was a talk given in general conference by Jospeh Smith that is STILL quoted in LDS lesson manuals today. It is VERY specific. there is little room for specualtion.

Polygamy is still a valid teaching of the Church, however, at this time it is not permitted for man to marry more than one woman upon penalty of excommunication. Again, there is speculation here that there will come a time during the tribulations, in the words of Isaiah, ‘seven woman shall take hold of one man, let us call ourselves by your name…’. If God wills it again, the Church will practice polygamy, regardless of the law.

it is okay for a man to be sealed to multiple women as long as either only one is living OR he receives sealing clearance. (based on the fact that he has a valid civil divorce and is NOT cohabiting in any way with with more than one spouse and is keeping the law of chastity as define by the LDs church

 

[majick275]

Place the following if you can. Regarding our present inquiry we accept as demonstrated facts the establishment of the Church of Christ under the Savior’s personal administration and the rapid growth of the Church in the early period of the apostolic ministry.

okay

A question of the utmost importance is: Has the Church of Christ, thus authoritatively established, maintained an organized existence upon the earth from the apostolic age to the present?

yes

Other questions are suggested by the first. If the Church has continued as an earthly organization, where lies
the proof or evidence of legitimate succession in priestly authority,

sacred tradition. the historical documents and histories passed down orally first and later written down that show these things.

and which among the multitude of contending sects or churches of the present day is the actual possessor of the holy priesthood originally committed to the Church by the Christ, its founder?

one could spark some debate here. obviously I will say Catholic but I acknowledge the Orthodox and even anglican positions as being worthy of some discussion. I think it’s somewhat foreign to the mind of the LDS the concept of the priesthood of believers through Jesus Christ. this is why I think the book of Hebrews is problematic for the LDS.

Furthermore, have the spiritual gifts and graces by which the early Church was characterized and distinguished been manifest on earth through the centuries that have passed since the meridian of time; and if so, in which of the numerous churches of these modern times do we find such signs following the
professed believers? See Mark 16:17.

i would say that meridian of time like dispensations is an LDS concept only. but i digress, to your point I believe yes and that we can see some level of these in many churches thus sparking some debate again. I think the fullness is in the catholic church. do you have verifiable examples of these being removed from the earth? existing uniquely in the LDS church?

I affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church GRADUALLY drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in
spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist.

you affirm? I think you opine this. I certainly disagree.

If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth today it must have been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church.

as i dispute the complete global universal apostasy, I don’t believe this at all.

I do further state that while mankind may pray to, receive answers and blessings from the Eternal Father, this in no way reflects the legitimate succession of the priesthood.

don’t be so quick to disregard’s God’s past examples like moses and paul wherein he called leaders directly. I think this moot though since ascribe to the catholic view of apostolic succession.

 

[majick275]

(continued)

We affirm that the great apostasy was foretold by the Savior Himself while He lived as a Man among men, and by His inspired prophets both before and after the period of His earthly probation. And further, we affirm that a rational interpretation of history demonstrates the fact of this great and
general apostasy.

will you provide specific examples?

Respecting the foreknowledge of God, let it not be said that divine omniscience is of itself a determining cause whereby events are inevitably brought to pass. A mortal father who knows the weaknesses and frailties of his son may by reason of that knowledge sorrowfully predict the calamities
and sufferings awaiting his wayward boy. He may foresee in that son’s future a forfeiture of blessings that could have been won, loss of position, self-respect, reputation and honor; even the dark shadows of a felon’s cell and the night of a drunkard’s grave may appear in the saddening visions of that
fond father’s soul; yet, convinced by experience of the impossibility of bringing about that son’s reform, he foresees the dread developments of the future, and he finds but sorrow and anguish in his knowledge. Can it be said that the father’s foreknowledge is a cause of the son’s sinful life? The son, perchance, has reached his maturity; he is the master of his own destiny; a free agent unto himself. The father is powerless to control by force or to direct by arbitrary command; and, while he would gladly make any
effort or sacrifice to save his son from the fate impending, he fears for what seems to be an awful certainty. But surely that thoughtful, prayerful, loving parent does not contribute to the son’s waywardness because of his knowledge. To reason otherwise would be to say that a neglectful father, who
takes not the trouble to study the nature and character of his son, who shuts his eyes to sinful tendencies, and rests in careless indifference as to the probable future, will by his very heartlessness be benefiting his child, because his lack of forethought cannot operate as a contributory cause to dereliction.

well there is a big difference between GOD who is our creator and a mortal father who is a parent.

Our Heavenly Father has a full knowledge of the nature and dispositions of each of His children, a knowledge gained by long observation and experience in the past eternity of our primeval childhood; a knowledge compared with which that gained by earthly parents through mortal experience with their
children is infinitesimally small. By reason of that surpassing knowledge, God reads the future of child and children, of men individually and of men collectively as communities and nations; He knows what each will do under given conditions, and sees the end from the beginning. His foreknowledge is based on intelligence and reason; He foresees the future as a state which naturally and surely will be; not as one which must be because He has arbitrarily willed that it shall be.

I disagree. I believe God to be omniscient. time doesn’t limit him like us. he is not subject to hawking’s arrow. therefore or he need not predict nor project because he KNOWS.